Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why aren't iMacs 16:10?
- Thread starter Sam Spade
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I believe that rather than discussing the merits of each aspect ratio in a vacuum, he prefers to compare the actual products for sale at each ratio and their pixel densities and price points. Which boils down to 16:9 is better because it's a better value for the same amount of pixels or more pixels for the same amount of money... which would be the same as saying fish is the tastiest food if you live in a fishing village, because it's plenty available and cheap.
His account only has 22 posts in two threads - each of which are about 16:9 > 16:10. This guy is just trolling - and we all bought it hook line and sinker.
For the sake of humanity I hope he is a troll. I would rather think that someone was being stupid on purpose to get a rise out of people than to really be THAT dense.
16:9 is wider than 16:10?? Huh?
The first number of both aspect ratio's is the Width.
Width = how WIDE something is.
16 = 16
Hence, they are the same width.
Now for the comment of "Well if 16:10 is taller than 16:9 then how come 4:3 is taller than both"
Well to compare it fairly you have to make either the width or height the same.
4:3 is essentially 12:9, or 16:12
See where this is going?
HAHA you are incredibly thick! My favourite part was where you quoted an article as evidence for your argument, without even reading it/comprehending that it actually proved you're talking bullsh.
"16:9 is wider than 16:10" - Now that's a comment for the hall of fame.
You clearly dont have a clue what aspect ratio means. The numbers just express the proportional relation between length and height. They have no actual length or width.
16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10 simply because 16/9 > 16/10.
16:10 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:10 simply because 10/16 > 9/16.
8:5 is the same aspect ratio as 16:10 because 8/5 = 16/10.
The relation between 8 and 5 is the same as the relation between 16 and 10.
"Aspect ratio is an image projection attribute that describes the proportional relationship between the width of an image and its height."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/aspect-ratio
Last edited:
If all you do is watch movies, sure.
If you do actual work, the lack of vertical space is a hindrance.
If i want a wider field of vision, i can get another monitor and place it next to the primary display. Its pretty hard to stack them on top of each other.
"16:9 is wider than 16:10" - Now that's a comment for the hall of fame.
He's right, you know. If you fix the diagonal size (in inches), the 16:9 screen is wider (horizontally, in inches) than the 16:10.
Physically, but not in screen real-estate (amount of pixels on the screen)
For computing 16:10 is better. The only reason it has mostly died out in computing is due to screen makers worrying about their bottom line and going with the cheapest panels they can get away with. As 16:9 panels are mass produced due to the TV/Movie industry, they naturally became the cheaper, thus commonplace option.
16:10 is better for computing. It has only lost popularity due to companies doing what they do best and saving money.
This is what Newegg apparently carries. Go to: Home > Computer Hardware > Monitors > LCD Monitors
Click 'Power Search' and scroll down to 'Recommended Resolution'. (Note 16:9 = 1.78 and 16:10 = 1.60)
800 x 480 = 1.67
800 x 600 = 1.33
1024 x 600 = 1.71
1024 x 768 = 1.33
1280 x 1024 = 1.25
1360 x 768 = 1.78
1366 x 480 = 2.85
1366 x 768 = 1.78
1440 x 900 = 1.60
1600 x 900 = 1.78
1600 x 1200 = 1.33
1680 x 1050 = 1.60
1690 x 1050 = typo on a refurbished model
1920 x 1080 = 1.78
1920 x 1200 = 1.60
2048 x 1536 = 1.33
2560 x 1024 = 2.50*
2560 x 1440 = 1.78
2560 x 1600 = 1.60
*is actually two panels on one stand.
Click 'Power Search' and scroll down to 'Recommended Resolution'. (Note 16:9 = 1.78 and 16:10 = 1.60)
800 x 480 = 1.67
800 x 600 = 1.33
1024 x 600 = 1.71
1024 x 768 = 1.33
1280 x 1024 = 1.25
1360 x 768 = 1.78
1366 x 480 = 2.85
1366 x 768 = 1.78
1440 x 900 = 1.60
1600 x 900 = 1.78
1600 x 1200 = 1.33
1680 x 1050 = 1.60
1690 x 1050 = typo on a refurbished model
1920 x 1080 = 1.78
1920 x 1200 = 1.60
2048 x 1536 = 1.33
2560 x 1024 = 2.50*
2560 x 1440 = 1.78
2560 x 1600 = 1.60
*is actually two panels on one stand.
I think he's right in a sense:
Here's a paired example from Dell:
Dell 2412M 24" (16:10) 1920 X 1200
Display area:
20.3 inches (518.4 mm) x 12.7 inches (324.0 mm)
Dell 2412H 24" (16:9) 1920 X 1080
Display area:
20.9" inches (531.36mm) x 11.7" inches (298.89mm)
The pixel count horizontally is the same (1920) but since the 16:9 screen is slightly larger physically, the pixels must be correspondingly slightly larger.
The GUI screen real estate is the same. The physical screen real estate is slightly different.
Not sure why the suppliers made the two Dell 24" monitors slightly different. There might exist theoretically two monitors (one 16:10, one 16:9) that have identical physical horizontal screen dimensions, and thus one would not be wider than the other. So, to say that 16:9 is wider than 16:10 is misleading, since these numbers are only a ratio and do not refer to any specific physical size.
Here's a paired example from Dell:
Dell 2412M 24" (16:10) 1920 X 1200
Display area:
20.3 inches (518.4 mm) x 12.7 inches (324.0 mm)
Dell 2412H 24" (16:9) 1920 X 1080
Display area:
20.9" inches (531.36mm) x 11.7" inches (298.89mm)
The pixel count horizontally is the same (1920) but since the 16:9 screen is slightly larger physically, the pixels must be correspondingly slightly larger.
The GUI screen real estate is the same. The physical screen real estate is slightly different.
Not sure why the suppliers made the two Dell 24" monitors slightly different. There might exist theoretically two monitors (one 16:10, one 16:9) that have identical physical horizontal screen dimensions, and thus one would not be wider than the other. So, to say that 16:9 is wider than 16:10 is misleading, since these numbers are only a ratio and do not refer to any specific physical size.
As I said. 16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10.
Thats obvious because the proportional length in 16:9 is longer in 16:9 than 16:10.
16:10 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:9.
Thats obvious because the proportional height in 16:10 is longer in 16:10 than 16:9.
You cant claim that one aspect ratio is bigger than another because they simply cant. You cant claim that one aspect ratio has more pixels than another because they simply cant. Aspect ratio is just a ratio, the proportional relationship between the length and height. And thats only. Nothing else.
If you compare the size or the amount of pixels between a 24" 1920x1080 16:9 monitor and a 24" 1920x1200 16:10 you dont compare the aspect ratios; you compare those specific screens.
Last edited:
Two 24" monitors one with 16:9 one with 16:10.
16:9 monitor is physically wider, how is that in any way relevant when both monitors have the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of pixels in width yet the 16:10 monitor gains pixels in the height department.
This argument is stupid and pointless.
Let's pretend we agree on whatever the fudge it is you are even saying, you can't ignore the fact that 16:10 is better for computing and the only reason it's lost it's popularity is due to cheap ass panels being made in 16:9 for TV's
Read what I said again. I said exact same amount of pixels in WIDTH.
That would be the 1920 part.
Ahh, whoops
Sleep is a very undervalued commodoty these days. I could use some now actually.You need to do some math or apply some geometry...
1) Screen real estate is obviously not the same when 1 format (16:10) has 120 vertical pixels in your example while having the same # of horizontal pixels.
2) Between 2 rectangles of same diagonal length, the one that is closer to a square (16:10 in this case) will have larger surface area and therefore be "larger". You can multiply the numbers if you doubt this.
p.s. When people typically compare 16:9 to 16:10 it is under the premise of same screen "size" aka diagonal length. Under that premise 16:9 is indeed always longer horizontally but also shorter vertically than 16:10.
Thats true for 24" monitors on the market only.
But it is not something general for 16:9 and 16:10. Do you really not see the difference?
----------
...and thats when they fail if they draw any general conclusion about 16:9 and 16:10 based on that.
I'm not sure why you're using pixel count as your definition. By extension, a rMBP is twice as wide as any 24" 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200) display, and a 52" VGA monitor is one third as wide. You seem to be confusing resolution (which has more impact on clarity) with usable screen real estate.
Actually it is the only logical way to compare them. Without that basis all comparison will be purely subjective aka useless. You can argue that 16:9 is cheaper and often can get a higher resolution for the same price. However then it becomes a chicken and egg problem as pricing is a direct result of economies of scale.
That is arguing semantics. "Screen real estate" is not so clearly defined. Often it is taken to mean how much "stuff" your screen can display at a time and resolution is a direct correlation of that.
Right, but is the resolution usable? Can you fit more "stuff" on a 2880x1800 7" screen than a 1920x1200 42" screen?
Usable is subjective. If someone wants to use the 7" under a microscope be my guest. That is a rather "out there" example anyway as neither display size/resolution examples are currently available. Using what you posted in your previous post plenty of people can use the rMBP at native resolution and will therefore be "more screen real estate" to them than the other two options.
I want a 16x10000000 screen, that way i wouldn't have to scroll every again (Although i would need to ab-sail down the screen to read the text, which could be fun.)
It was an extreme example, to make the point. You can always opt for extreme squinting and/or magnifying glasses, or for heavy pixelation by finagling UI / font size at a lower resolution. The resolution doesn't tell you if the screen shape and size is meeting your needs for single-tasking, multi-tasking, etc.
Personally I find that 16:10 is better a single-tasking, and 16:9 is better at multi-tasking, simply because I like the shapes of the 2 maximized side-by-side windows better, and I'm a little finicky about not showing the desktop when I'm doing something.